Is defining the war as a sectional crisis problematic?

I wonder if looking at the war as a sectional crisis has presented a problem (especially in terms of “historical memory”) in not only defining the people within those sections but understanding just how complex the history of the war really is.

The geographical borders laid out for us on a map show it as a sectional crisis. Yet, with the exception of the border states (and, of course, Delaware), slavery defined that map, but not necessarily all of the people within those boundaries. While people can clearly see that the nation, at least geographically, was divided, I wonder how many are actually unable to see that the people within those areas were divided. A fine example, I think, is the way that some want to say that the “Southern perspective of the war” equates to the “Confederate perspective of the war.” That’s simply a gross distortion of the facts as it does not include the perspectives of slaves, free blacks, Southern Unionists, disillusioned Confederates, disaffected Confederates, or the generally indifferent Southern residents. Of course, telling just the “Confederate perspective” of the war as an element of the “Southern perspective” would not be all that easy either (another argument for another time).

So, seriously, does seeing the war as a sectional conflict (perhaps like taking a document at face value) make it more difficult to explain the complexities of the war?

I think it could. I recently looked at a map of Texas outlining the secession vote by county in the 1861 referendum here. While counties were much larger then than they are presently, in many of the western and southwestern counties the vote was overwhelmingly agaist secession. In the Red River counties, it was basically a 51-49 margin either way, but mostly against secession. The eastern and southeastern counties are what pushed secession into the majority in Texas, but even then some places had a narrow margin approving the secession ordinance.

Texans had several issues in its own internal conflict, not the least of which was its 11-year wait to enter the Union in the first place. Combine this with a huge influx of European immigration, and, I believe, if you do call the Civil War a “sectional crisis,” each Southern state could realistically be thought to have had its own “sectional crisis.” In Texas, it centered around immigrant population groups (particularly the Germans in the Texas Hill Country, but most recently-immigrated Europeans, according to most secondary sources I have seen, were pro-Union) and the settlers along the Texas frontier who looked to the US Army for protection against Native American raids.

While I am not familiar with a great deal of research from other states, I believe James McPherson in _Battle Cry of Freedom_ briefly looks at the differences between sentiments in the the Virginia Piedmont region and the mountain region that eventually became West Virginia. Eric Foner examines it a little closer in _Reconstruction_. Virginia and West Virginia, however, also lend themselves to the idea that each state could be seen as having its own internal “sectional crisis.”

Might each state have had a “sectional crisis” that, in turn, defined the greater “sectional crisis” of the entire country?

I think you can say that each state had a sectional crisis, and then there were rifts even within those sections. It’s a huge mess when we really begin to examine it in detail.

As far as sectional crisis within sectional crisis, I don’t think we have too far to look when we consider things like the 1860 Presidential election (the map is in an earlier post in this blog and it may look colorful, but it says a lot about the split in sentiment in the South). The Confederacy was not a united body, nor was it only eleven bodies (states) afloat temporarily in a unified state against the Union. It was multiple bodies adrift in a sea of uncertainty, often uncertain of itself and pitted against itself. The truth of the matter has a lot to do with my being bothered by portrayals of the Civil War South and the Confederacy in ways that misrepresent the CW era South as some unified system of states against the “tyranny of Lincoln” and the Union. I find it very interesting to consider the pitch by some about the legality of secession and yet they make no mention of the real people who were in the middle of it all. It didn’t end with states’ rights with some people. When the Confederacy passed the conscription acts, many Southerners believed that it was against the rights of the individuals. Then, look at governors such as Brown and Vance who were secessionists even to the point where they did not really show much enthusiasm for being a part of the Confederacy. If all was granted and the Confederacy would have won, I have to wonder if the South might have fractured into hundreds of tribal states that would eventually end up in multiple conflicts against one another.

Sorry… I think I just went on a rant.

Anyway, to get back to my own post, yes, I think we need to encourage others to stop looking at the war in terms of the North vs. the South or the Union vs. the Confederacy. It diminishes the opportunity for a better understanding of just how complex the war was, and more importantly, the people in that war.

Looking at other information, that might should have been “Virginia Tidewater region,” not “Virginia Piedmont region.” But, what do I know? I’ve only visited Virginia twice in my life. (Norfolk and Charlottesville) ;)

I believe you are on to something important. The only reason why the questions would be directed at the South is because so much of the violence took place there. But as you know there were a variety of opinions in the North and I would be interested in learning more about the differing voices and sentiments there as well.

Applying any one generalized “reason for fighting”- whether “fighting to preserve slavery” or “for hearth and home”- makes a sweeping generalization of a huge and diverse population. When you think about it, what other region in the world of comparable size would we apply such generalizations when looking at pivotal historical events?

I believe “hearth and home” were compelling enough for anyone, regardless of ethnicity, and this probably resonated strongly with the thousands of farm folk at arm’s length from the power politics in the state legislatures. As important as I think this dynamic was, over the years I’ve come to believe there is a bigger story.

In the nearly 20 years I’ve lived in Oklahoma I’ve learned to appreciate its strange and fascinating history (I’m going somewhere with this, I promise). Oklahoma is similar to Louisiana in that the territory had its own unique racial politics and racial/social mores that you didn’t find in, say, the stereotypical plantation areas of Virgina, Georgia, etc. In addition, it had a myriad of competing local governments.

Oklahoma served as an example (to me) of how the war is remembered differently because it was fought differently by people with very different interests and perceptions than in the east.

With this as an example, it is my interpretation that the Confederate cause attracted 1) anyone with a gripe against the federal government, regardless of how they viewed slavery and 2) anyone who saw an opportunity to escape federal jurisdiction- whether slave owner, disillusioned tribe, arms dealer to tribes, land speculators, or outlaws. There were a multitude of interests that stood to gain from siding with the Confederacy.

A non-sectarian view of the WBTS doesn’t necessarily subvert Confederate “memory”. It will cut both ways. Yet if a non-sectarian view were applied fairly, I believe we would be richer for it. That is why I appreciate your blog. I do not like simple history. As long as it involves human beings, it is never simple.

You are right, of course. It wasn’t just the South that was divided. It was also the North. Funny thing about this, and I was thinking about it the other day, but you know, I wonder if our country has a Civil War North mentality when it comes to our national conflicts against other bodies. We continue in our lives daily, doing what we do, talking about things so incredibly distant from the wars, and I think we see nominal support of the military… but before I go off on another tangent, better leave that for another post on another day.

I think you are correct about the multi-dimensional South when it came to the war. Yet, as I have mentioned in other posts, just how far were they willing to go? Seems to me, it was easy to be high on secession fever and shake a fist when there are no armies present on your doorstep (April 1861), but the situation changes when war comes to the doorstep. Some weren’t willing to go so far at that point, while it stimulated others to action. Then still, when Union soldiers were on the doorstep, other Southerners must have felt confident in their decisions to remain in support of the Union and that the idea of a Confederacy was absurd. These are just examples of how incredibly hard it is to tell about the Southern perspective of the war; there are so many others, as I mentioned in the original post.

Really, when we look at it this way, we need to appreciate it almost like we appreciate a patchwork quilt. When we look at it as defined by one solid color, one way and one way only, it not only gets boring, but it can get outright annoying. If we are able to look at it for everything that it was, it’s beautiful! I love the South and it’s history, and the role of my people in that history! But the Confederacy alone did not explain the CW era South or the role of my people in it… and frankly the role of a lot of other peoples’ people as well, though they might want to think or say otherwise. So, I’ll say it again… that’s why I get so tired with the overbearing approach that the South was one in the same as the Confederacy. It’s over-simplistic and frankly telling only a fraction of the truth when you consider every element that was in it.

The Southern perspective of the war is a mixed bag and I think we’re much better off realizing this and explaining it to others in this way. I also believe that acknowledging this is far better for the preservation of each individual element and symbol that was/is a part of our Southern heritage. Understanding it and telling the story merely as a sectional crisis is part of the problem that has fed what is actually not just a Lost Cause myth, but a myth of the entire South. Sadly, I think that the myth of the Lost Cause has squelched the greater truth that is the history of the Civil War era South.

Clearly the broad-brush regional labels hide a lot of the specific resistance to the war, in both the North and the South.

In my work on St. Louis, I emphasize those specific differences that split slaveholding Unionists, anti-war Irish Catholics, free African Americans, and others in the city who nevertheless managed to work side-by-side. The lived reality was far less stark than the version we sketch.

My work also adds another element: the importance of the West as a region in the Civil War. The West was of course the imagined prize of northern free-soil and southern proslavery ideologues, but, as my book will argue, the West had its own advocates and own agenda, one that cut across the Whig-Democrat divide and could include both Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, both Thomas Hart Benton and Henry Clay.

As commentators above note, these differences were most evident in the trans-Mississippi West, west of the so-called western theatre of the war….

Thanks for your comment Adam. I think it’s exciting to read about efforts such as your own to explain the complexities. Frankly, I’m far behind the curve in understanding the west and agendas out there, so your work is of particular interest to me. Taking the sectionalism thing even further, I’d say that your comment and David’s makes us aware that we can often get too locked-up in our own little world of understanding (another form of sectional “remembrance” I suppose). I think for me, the challenge is great enough to figure out what “my people” were thinking and, so I often think I might be a little narrow-minded thinking only within the context as it relates to my ancestry. As exciting as it is to think about our own people, obviously, I need to multi-task a little more :-)

Does this not lend some credence to the argument the war was the manifestation of two competing economic systems?

Now don’t pin this idea on me, but you could explain the spread with regard to the secession vote in light of the agricultural system predominant in those counties – cash crop farming vs. subsistence. Of course that would also mean we must place the white sharecroppers (which have been generally left out of the discussion) in context here.

In part, yes, but not entirely. Yet, even when we talk about cash crop, did it not exist in the mid-west states that stayed with the Union? The only difference, of course, was that slavery wasn’t part of both cash crop systems. The white sharecroppers are an interesting lot as well, and I think many of these subsistence folks, as well as simple laborers on cash crop farms (yes, there are some people who want to believe that the only source of labor in such situations in the South were slaves… yet another “memory” hiccup), might fall in the same category. In either case, there were people in this lot who fought for hearth and home in the Confederacy and those who were Southern Unionists.

Well consider this. The counties of Illinois and Indiana where the population seemed at least ambivalent toward the war happened to mark the northern limit of cotton and tobacco farming. It took some good speeches by McClernand and Logan to keep “Egypt” to convince some of those residents to volunteer.

There’s some connection in Missouri between secessionist sentiment and similar cash crop systems – cotton and hemp in particular. However the joker in the deck there had to do with Kansas.

This is good stuff Craig. I wasn’t aware of the efforts by McClernand and Logan. Frankly, I need to purchase a book that’s in circulation (Army Life of an Illinois Soldier: Including a Day-By-Day Record of Sherman’s March to the Sea: Letters and Diary of Charles W. Wills). Wills is also a distant cousin of mine. I perused the work once when in the Library of Virginia, just need to get myself a copy. What I did read was interesting as he was critical of many people back in Illinois. Incidentally, his brother was a Confederate, having gone South prior to the war (I think he was in Louisiana). Anyway, without each other realizing it, they were on opposite sides of the battlefield at Shiloh.

There’s a lot to be explored with regard to both McClernand and Logan. McClernand was somewhat of a “Douglas man” and initially he was not an ardent supporter of either Lincoln or the idea of sending troops into the seceding states. And he held a lot of sway in Congress. McClernand also was the leading political figure in Southern Illinois, and to some degree a rival of Lincoln’s. But I wouldn’t carry that too far, as McClernand was at the time still much a satellite of Douglas.

Personally I think Douglas did a lot to persuade McClernand to get on board with the war. But once he made the switch, McClernand jumped with both feet. He spoke often and recruited heavily. His battlefield presence at Belmont, Fort Donelson, and Shiloh were to say the least better than other politcal generals of the time. But you get the impression Grant was never at ease with him. The big rift of course came when McClernand used his connections as a way of coopting Grant’s Vicksburg campaign. (A lot of that “politicing” took place when McClernand accompanied Lincoln to visit Antietam, BTW.)

Logan also was slowly convinced to plant himself as a War Democrat. But once the decision made, he didn’t look back. Logan actually fought at 1st Manassas, picking up a rifle and serving on the line (or so the story goes). He returned to Illinois to recruit along side McClernand. And like McClernand, he was at all those early western battles with Grant. I’d like to say that Grant had easier relations with Logan, but there is evidence of friction. And Logan certainly had some bad sentiments against the professional military that carried into the post-war period. Still Logan is among the Generals who’s statue appears in the nation’s capital. He must have done something right!

Robert,
Speaking of Confederate support in Illinois, back in 1996 Guild Press published Ed Gleeson’s short little book “Illinois Rebels: A Civil War Unit History of G Company, Fifteenth Tennessee Regiment, Volunteer Infantry”. I’ve never gotten around to reading it, but it apparently traces the activities of several dozen Illinois men that went south to join Co. G, 15th Tenn.

You are certainly not locked into your own little world. You have your focus, and you are from the Virginia soil, so I understand. William Faulkner could have been describing my family (and yours too, I bet) when he said:

“Even in our wilderness the old Virginia blood still runs and the old Virginia names- Byrd and Lee and Carter- still endure. There is no family in our wilderness but has that old aunt or grandmother to tell the children as soon as they can hear and understand: Your blood is Virginia blood too; your great-great-great grandfather was born in Rockbridge or Fairfax or Prince George- Valley or Piedmont or Tidewater, right down to the nearest milestone, so that Virginia is a living place to that child… ”

That being said, I’ve developed a deep respect for midwestern history. It is fascinating. I can spend hours- who am I kidding, I have spent hours- in the Oklahoma Historical Society bookstore, wandering about in a daze at the variety of topics I never would have seen in my home state. African American history out here will blow your mind. If you are ever in the state, I highly recommend a visit to the Oklahoma Historical Society.

So Adam, I am glad you commented as well. Thanks for bringing the book to my attention. I seem to be the only person around here that doesn’t have a book to plug!

. . . some want to say that the “Southern perspective of the war” equates to the “Confederate perspective of the war.”

Robert, in a general sense, that has to be assumed since it was the “South” fighting against the “North.” In other words, the “South” = the Confederacy, the “North” = the Union, at least when specifically discussing the war.

I’m a little perplexed at the slicing and dicing over these references. Certainly there were different opinions, positions, and varying shades of loyalty for lots of different reasons, but noting caveats every time someone mentions the “Southern perspective of the war” is, in my opinion, ludicrous.

The same thing could be said about the “Northern perspective of the war”, i.e. the Copperheads, Northern secessionists, etc.

“in a general sense, that has to be assumed since it was the “South” fighting against the “North.” In other words, the “South” = the Confederacy, the “North” = the Union, at least when specifically discussing the war.”

Why does it have “to be assumed?” Is it because the dominating government body in the South at the time of the war was the Confederacy? I think a significant number of Southerners who were alive at the time of the war and opted not to support the Confederacy and even resist it would say differently, even excluding slaves and free blacks who had no vote in the matter. Perspective is at ground level up, not from the top down. Frankly, the majority of the state governments that opted for secession never put the decision to a referendum. For those who want to make the argument that the numbers in the Confederate army showed how people would have voted, I’m certain that I have information to contest such suggestions at different levels. Furthermore, as opposed to the “tallying” of “Black Confederates,” the tally of Southerners in the ranks of the Union army and of those who operated to resist the Confederacy is easier to figure out and it is quite revealing. Even in homes where sons opted for service in the Confederate army and fathers strongly opposed the actions of their sons, there is something to be learned. For that matter, those who lost faith in the Confederacy reveals an even greater challenge to the thought that “Civil War era Southern perspective” equates to “Confederate perspective,” and even that “Confederate perspective” should not be defined so simplistically.

Incidentally, why do you feel it is necessary to use the word “ludicrous” in an effort to discount the thought that we should begin to look at the Southern perspective of the war more broadly? I’m actually “perplexed” that you do this just to put weight behind your disagreement with the suggestion. Nontheless, caveats are especially necessary in defining the Civil War era South. Shall contemporary Southerners who are able to recognize the multiple perspectives of Civil War era Southerners sit idle while some, including some SCV officials, attempt to suggest to the larger audience (even through “educational programs”) that our collective Civil War era Southern heritage was so narrowly defined? I think not.

Common sense. The Confederacy was located in the South. The Union was located in the North. I don’t believe when someone mentions the Southern perspective of the war that they are suggesting there weren’t diverse opinions. But there was a cohesive “official” voice that spoke through the duly elected representatives.

For example, on modern international affairs, when someone asks “What do the Brits say?” – it is assumed one is asking how the British government stands on a particular issue. That does not necessarily mean that 100% of the population in Great Britain supports or agrees with the government’s “official” position. The current debate over “torture” regarding the war on terror is another example. In the previous administration, the “American perspective” on torture was not supported by all of our citizens, but it was our “official” position.

“Frankly, the majority of the state governments that opted for secession never put the decision to a referendum.”

What’s your point? That’s the way we generally govern Robert, by elected representatives – a representative republic. What’s the relevancy? I could cite dozens of laws that would be changed today were they put to a referendum. Had the colonists been allowed a referendum vote in 1776, we’d still be British subjects.

“Incidentally, why do you feel it is necessary to use the word “ludicrous” in an effort to discount the thought that we should begin to look at the Southern perspective of the war more broadly?”

Nothing personal Robert. I just believe its silly. Just as silly as having to add the caveat of Copperheads and Northern secessionists every time we discuss the “Northern perspective” or would you say that is also necessary? Is there a place for it? Of course, but not in the general discussion of “the Confederate perspective” or “the Union perspective.”

“Shall contemporary Southerners who are able to recognize the multiple perspectives of Civil War era Southerners sit idle while some, including some SCV officials, attempt to suggest to the larger audience (even through “educational programs”) that our collective Civil War era Southern heritage was so narrowly defined? I think not.”

As I’ve said before, I don’t know anyone doing that. Any specifics? I keep reading that accusation, but never any details.

Sure Richard, lots. Quite honestly, it would take a considerable amount of time for me to tally up all of the examples that I can bring to the table. So, for starters, how many living history programs have you been to in which people describe the South in narrow and static terms? I’ve seen it often. How many reenactment camps have you walked through and heard the standard one-way pitch of a Confederate reenactor regarding the South? Again, my hand goes up. What about the SCV? Look at what the Cdr of the SCV said this past year about the “Southern Perspective.” Richard, what he and several others are suggesting, through the very words they have been quoted for, is not the “Southern perspective;” for that matter, it’s not really a complete Confederate perspective, but it is a very narrow portion of the Confederate perspective. So why sell it as any more than that? It’s not accurate and tells only part of the the Civil War era Southern perspective. I’m not saying that there weren’t many in the Civil War era South who may have matched the stories, but I’m certainly not supportive of the pitch that says that what they say is representative of most and certainly not all. It’s fractionally representative.

You can’t forget here that I’ve pretty much been in the middle of all of this stuff. I’ve seen it plenty of times in the SCV… after 20 years in that organization… and not just at the camp level, also in reenacting, and especially in living histories. What makes this even more genuine is that it’s not like I’ve seen it a couple of times as a passing spectator, rather, I’ve often found myself in previous years standing amidst others who are saying stuff like this, and while I was wearing gray myself! I’ll say that this is one distinct difference between me and some who talk about stuff such as this. I’m not speculating or hypothesizing as I don’t need to, I’ve been in the middle of it.

As for comparing Copperheads to Southern Unionists… really, how can you? I can’t think of nearly the impact that Copperheads had in the North that Southern Unionists had in the South. I think more Southern Unionists “walked the talk” than the Copperheads. They were a far greater presence in their actions and less so (as compared to Copperheads) through their words.

What’s my point regarding the referendum? Many Southerners got short-sheeted in the deal, and with each subsequent act of the Confederate government (consider the Conscription acts and even the 20-slave exemption, just as an example), many people realized it all too well. It was said on more than one occasion and was quite true that the Confederacy would fail because of the lack of support on the homefront. This needs to be studied in depth and not just taken as a statement at face value. So again, Southern perspective does not = Confederate perspective. Ever since I came across the bulk of information that I did five years ago in my research, it’s been all too clear to me. I’ve been through my fair share of evidence to realize this.

Just wanted to say “hello”. Good luck with your thesis, and congratulations on graduation.

In answer to the question you pose: “Is defining the war as a sectional crisis problematic?”–Yes.

How is that for a one word answer?

Have a great day.

Sherree

PS. I like this quote from your post, in particular:

“…….I think we need to encourage others to stop looking at the war in terms of the North vs. the South or the Union vs. the Confederacy. It diminishes the opportunity for a better understanding of just how complex the war was, and more importantly, the people in that war.”

I agree wholeheartedly, and I would add, that until–and unless–we finally do this; we will always remain a divided nation.

“So, for starters, how many living history programs have you been to in which people describe the South in narrow and static terms? I’ve seen it often. How many reenactment camps have you walked through and heard the standard one-way pitch of a Confederate reenactor regarding the South? Again, my hand goes up.”

So what? They are presenting one perspective. Are they not free to do so? It is ONE legitimate perspective. What should we do, have “living history police” to enforce “balance?” Anyone is free to organize their own events/perspectives. Go for it.

“What about the SCV? Look at what the Cdr of the SCV said this past year about the “Southern Perspective.” Richard, what he and several others are suggesting, through the very words they have been quoted for, is not the “Southern perspective;” for that matter, it’s not really a complete Confederate perspective, but it is a very narrow portion of the Confederate perspective.”

I don’t know, what did he say? You’ll need to be more specific for me to offer an opinion. Why don’t you feel the same way about Union reenactments? Do they offer the Copperhead perspective? The Union Secessionist perspective? If not, then, according to your logic, they should. If not, then they too are “fractionally representative.”

“You can’t forget here that I’ve pretty much been in the middle of all of this stuff.”

So am I.

“As for comparing Copperheads to Southern Unionists… really, how can you? I can’t think of nearly the impact that Copperheads had in the North that Southern Unionists had in the South.”

Easily. The CH’s are to the Union what SU’s were to the South. Impact is a different topic.

“What’s my point regarding the referendum? Many Southerners got short-sheeted in the deal, and with each subsequent act of the Confederate government”

That’s the way government works. A lot of folks felt like that after 2000, 2004, and 2008. Nothing extraordinary about that. Elections have consequences. Losers and winners.

“So what? They are presenting one perspective.” Not according to the way they present it and that’s the point. I didn’t say we need “living history police,” but I’m well aware of the need to present balanced history.

“That’s the way government works. A lot of folks felt like that after 2000, 2004, and 2008. Nothing extraordinary about that. Elections have consequences. Losers and winners.” And there is a comparison? Really? Strange, seems to me the stakes were much greater for Southerners at odds with one another between 1861-65.

I would suggest that Robert has gone furthest in the Civil War blogosphere in challenging some of the most deeply-embedded assumptions about the history of the South and the Confederacy. Not only have I learned a great deal about the construction and maintenance of memory from reading this blog, but have also enjoyed reading about the experiences of black and white southerners that, for much too long, have gone unnoticed.

Robert,
This is an excellent question, one that challenges our preconceived ideas in a potentially very fruitful way. I haven’t even read the comments as yet, but wanted to express some quick thoughts before I moved onto them. The framing of the war as “North” versus “South” is a convenient generalization that overlooks the way social, economic, and political tensions played themselves out in the years leading to the war, and during the war itself. Focusing our gaze on smaller regions, on states, and communities within states can get at some of these conflicts that were both local and national. What if we created a narrative of the war solely as it played out in the border states? Is that “North” v. “South,” or would it reveal conflicts that are more telling and expose a different paradigm for understanding what was happening in the country? Perhaps still viewing the war as between North and South not only limits our understanding, but leads to a presentist projection of current political, social, and cultural disenchantment back onto that era of our history.

I agree. Each state, county, and community is unique and working from the community up, I think, will help explain just how complicated things really were. I think over the years since the war, the generalization of the North vs. the South had a significant impact on the memory of the war, and with each generation we have become more distant from the distinct situations within the smaller social bodies. Actually, I’m quite certain of it within the geographic areas that I have examined. The smaller conflicts within communities are equally as interesting as the grand scale military conflicts. It’s just one example, but I think those conflicts within communities help us better understand motivation or lack of motivation in soldiers from those smaller areas.

[…] of the Civil War” and the “Southern perspective of the Civil War,” and supports the idea that we should abandon the thought of studying and describing Civil War in overly simplisti…. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)“Perspectives” on the Civil WarOur […]